It is with mixed feelings that I stand to speak in the House today.
On the one hand, I am deeply grieved that we even have to have this conversation right
now with regard to this topic of sexual harassment.
On the other hand, I am glad that we are having this conversation to bring attention to a
very important matter, and my hope is that we are able to do something about it going
forward.
All parties in this place agree that there is zero tolerance for sexual harassment, but
if we were to pick up a newspaper or watch the newscasts at night, or if we were to read
through the comments staffers from the Hill have posted to social media, we would see
that there are far too many stories with regard to sexual harassment taking place in the workplace.
The issue before the House is not a partisan issue, and we must begin by agreeing not to
make it so.
This is an issue of power and the balance of power between an employee and an employer.
When it comes time to hire or fire, members of Parliament have complete control over this
process and the staff in their offices.
For every paid staffer, it is important to understand that there are a dozen interns
hoping to take that job.
This places employees in an extremely precarious position and makes them very vulnerable.
Add to this the lack of an independent process for handling harassment allegations and it
is no wonder employees can quickly find themselves in a position where they feel that they have
no option but to keep silent and hope not to rock the boat.
For those reasons, I welcome the initiative of the government to implement a more formal
structure for preventing and responding to sexual harassment in the public workplace.
I believe it is very important for this bill to make it to committee as soon as possible,
where it can be further assessed.
At that stage, legislators would have the opportunity to examine it closely and make
the necessary changes to strengthen it going forward.
To serve all employees and all employers well, sexual harassment must be clearly defined.
That said, we must discuss whether it is better to define sexual harassment through legislation
or to allow cabinet to define it through what is called regulation.
Traditionally, sexual harassment has been defined in part III of the Canada Labour Code.
However, clause 16 of the bill before this House would delete the legislated definition
of sexual harassment from the code.
In its place, the Liberals would give authority to cabinet members to define sexual harassment
through part II of the Labour Code.
This means that the government of the day would be empowered to define what sexual harassment
is in both the House of Commons and all federally regulated workplaces, with zero input from
this place, Parliament.
As a general principle, important changes like this should be enshrined within legislation.
[The Assistant Deputy Speaker]I hate to interrupt, but I just want to remind the hon. members
that debate is taking place, and I am kind of having a hard time.
Maybe it is my age.
My hearing is not as good as it used to be.
I am having a hard time hearing the hon. member for Lethbridge.
The hon. member for Lethbridge.
The rest of the members could maybe whisper a bit more softly or take the discussion into
the lobby.
[Rachael Harder] Mr. Speaker, as a general principle, important changes like this should
be enshrined in legislation.
Now, it stands to reason that most Canadians, including the employers bound by the Canada
Labour Code, believe that the definition of sexual harassment is something worth preserving
in law and that it is the process we should be going through.
The second thing that will need to be examined by the committee is how we ensure that all
employees, including those who work for government members, enjoy the full protection of this
legislation.
The House of Commons is not like other federal government workplaces.
This place, by design, is meant to be partisan.
Democracy is best served by the official opposition skilfully testing the government's policies
and bringing them to the Canadian public's attention.
The ability of the opposition to do its job without fear of reprisal or retribution by
the Prime Minister, or any member on that side of the House, is foundational to our
democracy, which is why I am a little concerned about how this legislation would actually
be applied to the House of Commons.
The bill before us would bring members of Parliament and their staff under the authority
of part II of the Canada Labour Code.
It is important, then, to understand how this code uniquely empowers the Liberal Minister
of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour to personally initiate investigations and
make compliance orders under the act.
Upon receiving a complaint from an employee or employer, it is the Minister of Employment,
Workforce Development and Labour who would be authorized to conduct an investigation.
Once an investigation was conducted, it would also be the Minister of Employment, Workforce
Development and Labour who was authorized to issue compliance orders.
This would be done, of course, through the Member of Parliament who was brought forward
through a complaint.
The minister also has the power to issue emergency directives to an employer and to make those
orders public.
We can see how devastating this could potentially be to a member's career if, in fact, a complaint
was found not to hold water.
For those watching from their homes and workplaces today, let me take a moment to quickly outline
the implications.
An employee would have the opportunity to make a complaint directly to the Minister
of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour.
At this point, the minister could decide not to investigate if she felt that the complaint
was vexatious or made in bad faith.
Right away, this should raise some red flags, given the circumstances.
The question we must ask is whether Canadians can have complete confidence that the minister,
behind closed doors, would impartially judge complaints when she had the power to protect
her Liberal colleagues from allegations that could potentially end their careers.
What also worries me is that there would be no appeal process.
Once the minister made her ruling, the complaint would simply go away.
On the other hand, if the minister decided to launch an investigation, she would then
have the power to enter the workplace to compel the production of documents and to force testimony
from staff.
Let me be clear on this point.
This legislation, as it is worded now, would grant a Liberal minister the legal right to
enter an opposition MP's office to compel the office to turn over any record she deemed
necessary for the investigation.
This could include emails, private or personal calendar pages, social media accounts, text
messages, etc.
The minister and her staff could be entitled to snoop through the member's data and records,
which would then give them access to a ton of politically sensitive information, information
that may or may not find its way into the hands of, let us say, a journalist.
I am sure all members are able to see how this could be used for partisan gain.
Of course, we hope not, but nevertheless, I must highlight the potential.
Even if the minister delegated the initial decision to investigate and also delegated
the actual investigation, the minister would still need to sign off at the end.
There would be no way for the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour
to completely excuse herself from the process.
The question then becomes this: Could Canadians rightfully expect that the Liberal minister
would treat a Conservative MP and a Liberal MP the exact same way?
Furthermore, the minister would also determine whether an order had been complied with.
If, in the minister's opinion, an order was not observed, a subjective determination,
I might add, she would have the power to table the order in Parliament publicly, thus shaming
the member.
Finally, the minister would have the authority at any point after a complaint was made to
issue an emergency compliance directive if she believed that the health of an employee
was at risk.
Emergency orders would be immediately tabled in the House of Commons, and made publicly
known, announcing that an investigation was under way, before any facts of the situation
had actually been determined.
It is hard to imagine that the minister would not be tempted to perhaps use this provision
by announcing an investigation into an opposition MP, perhaps as soon as possible or when it
seemed necessary or to the advantage of the party in power.
If we are serious about providing equal protection for employees of members of the government
and members of the opposition and about ensuring the non-partisan application of this law,
then we need to ensure that there is an arm's-length, neutral, third-party regulator put in place
who will make decisions about whether a complaint is valid and about how to conduct the investigation.
One may think that no one would seriously consider using something such as sexual harassment
as a tool for political advantage.
I would certainly hope not, but I believe we must do everything in our power to ensure
the safety of employees without risking the potential of partisan gamesmanship.
We owe it to every current and future employee of this House to get this right, including
the staff of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, who, let us be really
honest, is quite unlikely to investigate and prosecute herself should a complaint be made.
This begs the question: Where do her employees go?
I urge my hon. colleagues to send this bill to committee, where its members can work with
expert advisers to figure out how to ensure that the integrity and impartiality of this
process is upheld.
We owe it to the staff of the House of Commons.
We owe it to the members in this place.
We must address this issue with regard to sexual harassment and create a safe and secure
work environment for all.
For more infomation >> Lake Worth students take the "Oh Yes I Can Challenge" - Duration: 3:35. 
For more infomation >> Google Search by File - The File Extensions You Can Find on Google - Duration: 6:53. 
For more infomation >> Polish army can - cucumber soup - POLSKIE NAPISY ! - Duration: 4:05. 
For more infomation >> Here's Some Of The Unique Super Bowl Gear That Can Be Found At The NFL Shop In Minneapolis - Duration: 2:01. 
For more infomation >> What Did Melania Trump Give To Michelle Obama In The Tiffany Box Gift - You Can Sleep Now - Duration: 2:45. 
For more infomation >> Southwick fire a reminder that pets can cause house fires - Duration: 1:51. 
For more infomation >> Report: Pentagon To Implement Ban On 1 Item Americans Can't Live Without - Duration: 1:58. 
For more infomation >> Judge: Wellsville murder defendant can't take back guilty plea - Duration: 0:37. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét